Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order declining to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is appealable to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 36 of the Act.
Analysis: Section 36(1) permits an appeal only against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 32(1). The refusal to initiate suo motu revision does not amount to a positive order under section 32(1). The earlier decisions construing analogous provisions under the Act established that appellate or revisional remedies arise only when the authority actually exercises the power and passes an order, and not when it declines to act. Applying that principle, a mere refusal to exercise suo motu power cannot be treated as an appealable order.
Conclusion: No appeal lay to the Tribunal against the Deputy Commissioner's refusal to exercise suo motu power, and the Tribunal's assumption of jurisdiction was incorrect.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal was held to be not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under a provision limited to orders passed in exercise of revisional power does not lie against a mere refusal to exercise that power.